See important guidance on the use of this record.

If you have any comments or new information about this record, please email us.

Summary

Churchyard surrounding the Church of St Mary, Totnes. On the main south and west sides, the churchyard wall is 19th century, the older churchyard walls are located along the east and north sides.

Location

Protected Status

• Scheduled Monument 1020567: Totnes Priory

Other References/Statuses

• Old DCC SMR Ref: SX86SW/25/5
• Old Listed Building Ref (II)

Monument Type(s) and Dates

• CHURCHYARD (Unknown date)

Full description

Griffith, D. M., Churchyard (Personal Comment). SDV350558.

Visit on 02/08/1982 (Griffiths). 25 metre portion of churchyard wall on north side rebuilt in August 1982. For the watching brief see SX86SW/17. Depth of churchyard material at this point 3 metres. Skeletons at all levels.

Cotton, W., 1850, A Graphic and Historical Sketch of the Antiquities of Totnes, 46 (Unknown). SDV350395.

Brushfield, T. N., 1892, The Church of All Saints, East Budleigh. Part 2, 344 (Article in Serial). SDV15399.

Parish church. Considerable portion of churchyard used for recreation. Contained a fives court, now converted into a burial ground. It is now surrounded by a wall.

Department of Environment, 1978, Totnes, 48 (List of Blds of Arch or Historic Interest). SDV342722.

Visit on an unknown date. On main south and west sides, churchyard wall is 19th century, red sandstone. Octagonal gate piers with crenellated caps to west gate. Older churchyard walls along east and north sides of Devonian limestone rubble with weathered coping of granite. Ashlar gate piers with pyrammidical caps and cast iron gates to east and north gateways.

Ordnance Survey, 2012, MasterMap (Cartographic). SDV348725.

Blaylock, S., 2017, St Mary's Church, Totnes: Historical and archaeological assessment of the churchyard (Report - Assessment). SDV361027.

This assessment was commissioned in January 2017 jointly by St Mary's Parochial Church Council (PCC) and the Totnes Trust to marshall the available evidence on the history and archaeology of the churchyard. Its main aim is to provide the background on the development of the churchyard and thereby to establish the potential archaeological, statutory, and practical constraints on future work, and to make some estimate of the likely nature of below-ground remains.

By and large the assessment does not include the parish church itself, although
mention will be made of aspects of the building where relevant to other considerations. The church has recently been the subject of a very full study in the shape of a Conservation Management Plan (Elders 2007, passim, but especially Appendix 2), and it is assumed that this will be available to be read in conjunction with the present report. To have given more detailed consideration to the church here would have made this already-long document significantly longer still.

The material gathered for this assessment has shown that there is a considerable body of varied information relating to the churchyard of St Mary's: archaeological, historical, architectural, documentary, pictorial, and photographic material offers evidence of different types which can be drawn on to explain and illustrate how and why the site looks as it does today. The surface topography of the churchyard is mostly attributable to the post-medieval use as a burial ground, with significant depths of graveyard soils to be expected everywhere, although reduced in depth where the pathways and other relatively recent intrusions obviously cut into it. Clearance of memorials and landscaping works have added another layer to this palimpsest, with high points in the superficial topography possibly the result of 19th century spoil heaps from the excavation of drainage gullies, particularly those along the south wall. The various earlier phases of use and occupation, whether of the pre-Conquest period, the medieval priory or the medieval burial ground, must be assumed to have left their mark below ground, and although possibly disturbed by grave digging and construction and restoration work, are potentially present throughout the area.

With regard to the potential for early archaeological remains: if Jeremy Haslam's
suggestion (1984, 261), with some justification, that the early church of the late-Saxon burh was elsewhere, then the present churchyard has the potential to preserve evidence for early secular occupation stratified beneath any remains of the parish church and priory. This would probably be in the form of property boundaries relating to early tenements running back to the defences from High Street, and would be most likely to take the form of linear boundary features, such as ditches. Preservation will be dependent on lack of intrusion from later activity associated with the church and priory. The possibility may seem remote, but it should be considered in the context of any future archaeological observations. Early cultivation soil deposits have been observed elsewhere beneath the ramparts, and these might be expected in the area of the churchyard as well.

If, on the other hand, the church has always been in this position, then we should
expect remains of at least two earlier churches beneath the late medieval building at the core of the present church: a late Saxon church and a 12th or 13th century one (Elders 2007, 19). Although remains of any earlier church(es) are likely to fall within the footprint of the present building, associated deposits could well survive in the churchyard.

Underlying everything will be such remains of the town defences as have survived
subsequent activity. The sequence established by the North Street excavations, supplemented by observations elsewhere: of a pre-rampart cultivation soil, setting-out bank, and primary earth rampart, with later addition of a stone wall to the front of the rampart (Dyer and Allan 2004, 62–64), stands broadly as a model of what we might expect at this point of the circuit.

As regards the priory the known structural parameters for its plan are as follows: We know that there was a structure to the north east of the present chancel from its surviving south-west corner now embedded in the late-medieval chancel (although opinions differ on its function, namely whether it represented a separate priory church, or had some other function); we know that the cloister lay north of the parish church, from the agreement between the prior and mayor of 1445 which states that the 'north wall of the old town church adjoined the cloister of the priory' (Russell 1984, 11–12; Rea 1925, 276); we also know that the buildings to the north of the cloister survive in part embedded in the present Guildhall complex (above). Beyond this we know little that can be precisely plotted on a plan (and see also, below). This limitation needs to be remembered in assessing previous attempts to reconstruct the plan of the priory buildings.

Edward Windeatt appears to have thought that the parish church and priory church were coincident, i.e. one and the same (Windeatt 1880, 166), as did Hugh Watkin (Watkin 1917, 963–80); and some modern authors have followed this (e.g. Elders 2007, 62; 67). Other authors proposed that the priory church was to the north and east of the parish church, adjoining at the corners, and that the cloister lay north of the parish church and west of the priory church (e.g. Russell 1984, 11, 37; plans 2, 4, etc.; Masson Phillips 1985, 12).

All below-ground interventions in the churchyard need archaeological monitoring. Previous opportunities have been few and their results meagre (above); this does not mean that there are not observations to be made, and had we had observations from the construction of the War Memorial, say, or the re-surfacing works south of the porch or in the street in front of the church, or even from the time when the churchyard paths were resurfaced with tarmac,
there may well have been more to say in this assessment.

A geophysical survey of the churchyard would be the natural next step in non-
invasive investigation of the below-ground conditions. This has been carried out for the interior of the church with some useful results, albeit surrounded by uncertainty and qualification (above and Roseveare and Roseveare 2007). A survey of the churchyard, preferably using ground-penetrating radar (GPR) backed up by a parallel technique, may help to provide some specific data for pursuing several of the matters flagged as uncertain in this report (e.g. position of the priory buildings, extent of the early churchyard, position of the court wall, etc.). GPR might also provide information on depths if sufficient reference
material is available (see discussion in ibid., i, 1, 7).

One of the big uncertainties relating to the priory concerns the nature of the cloister, essentially how the drop in ground levels was managed. There has to have been some form of stepping down over the north-south length of the cloister, this is partly reflected in the present ground levels, but must be partly masked by the levelling-up of graveyard soils. Some progress could probably be made here by a levels survey, paying close attention to floor and ground levels between the church and the Guildhall, this would provide a picture of the current surface morphology which could help inform further thought on this matter.

An accurate plan is needed: while previously published plans (Watkin, Russell) are
helpful and widely cited, it must be remembered that they are essentially conjectural, based on observed medieval fabric at only a minority of points (and those open to interpretation) and using base surveys of dubious accuracy. A new attempt at a reconstructed plan of the church and priory in the late medieval period is highly desirable, and should follow on from two other recommendations, namely the new survey of the churchyard to provide an accurate base plan, and the geophysical survey. The former should, if possible, include the standing buildings on the north side in their entirety, to take account of the medieval fabric newly observed in the north wall of the Guildhall.

Blaylock, S., 2018, Totnes St Mary, Churchyard assessment: Possible archaeological implications arising from the geophysical survey, (Report - Assessment). SDV361028.

Totnes Trust is in partnership with Totnes with Bridgetown PCC and Totnes Town Council to formulate a 'St Mary's Heritage for Life Plan'. This vision for the St Mary's precinct embraces the restoration and reordering of the church and improvements to the historic area surrounding it; this latter being known as the Heritage Area Project (HAP). Because of the archaeological complexity and sensitivity of the site, some attempt to assess and predict the nature of below-ground remains has been seen as an essential part of the planning process. This has comprised a number of different elements, initially an assessment of the known history and archaeology of the churchyard and its environs, examining records of past interventions, and the like, carried out in January-February 2017 (Blaylock 2017). The main aim of this was to draw together material relevant to the archaeological and historical background on the development of the churchyard, and thereby to establish the potential archaeological, statutory and practical constraints on future work, and to attempt an estimate of the likely nature of below-ground remains. In the conclusions of this assessment, it was recommended that one of the ways to take forward the study of the archaeology of the site of the church and priory was by means of a geophysical survey (Blaylock 2017, 24). Geophysical survey of the church and churchyard had also been one of the recommendations of the Conservation Management Plan in 2007 (Elders 2007, 50; 65) and a survey of the interior of the church had in fact taken place soon after this in the context of a proposed reordering scheme (Roseveare and Roseveare 2007), although the churchyard itself was not included in this survey. Consequently a geophysical survey of the churchyard of St Mary's, Totnes and on adjacent areas of the Guildhall Yard by ground penetrating radar (GPR) was commissioned by the Totnes Trust. This was carried out by SUMO Services Ltd of Upton upon Severn in January 2018.

The majority of archaeological features that are likely to be encountered are graves, and it is important to remember that this churchyard has been a burial ground for perhaps a thousand years. The depth of deposits is likely to be considerable, and individual grave cuts may be hard to disentangle within the graveyard soils (see Blaylock 2017, 9; 22). The survival of human remains is likely to be variable, although finds of human bone have been reported in previous archaeological interventions, suggesting that local conditions permit the survival of skeletal material, it remains unclear whether any were articulated burials, or simply disarticulated bones within graveyard soil (ibid., 9–10).

As a minimum, therefore, it should be expected that disarticulated human remains will be encountered (perhaps in some quantity), and a policy for the treatment of these will be necessary. This might usually be covered by an archaeological watching brief on ground reduction and (in common with general diocesan policy and archaeological good practice) such disarticulated bone would be collected and passed to the incumbent for reburial. Burials in situ are also quite likely; here on the treatment of burials in churchyards in particular and the archaeological treatment of burials in general the very full guidance note produced last year by the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England (APABE) now sets out the legislative, administrative and archaeological framework fully and clearly (APABE 2017, especially 13–14, paras 101–110, but passim). In this case general good practice argues against the disturbance of human remains except where absolutely essential, especially in consecrated burial grounds.

One other factor could be the presence of burial vaults or crypts within the churchyard. This was not an uncommon form of burial structure, and such features can often have become unmarked at the surface. The geophysical survey might have been expected to show strong anomalies through a number of timeslices if vaults are present, and only two of the strongest anomalies would seem to fulfil this criterion: the persistent anomaly some 8 metres north east of the north-east corner of the church and the anomaly in the angle of the south aisle and chancel (both of which are present on all but the shallowest timeslices: figs 04–09); neither of these falls within the proposed areas of intervention. Buried ledgers and/or fallen headstones are also a possibility, although perhaps not a strong one, such features can become buried over time, and could have survived past churchyard clearances. (Please see report for full comments).

Sources / Further Reading

Associated Monuments

Associated Finds: none recorded

Associated Events

• EDV7547 - Historical and Archaeological Assessment of the Churchyard: St Mary's Church, Totnes
• EDV7548 - Possible archaeological implications arising from the geophysical survey: Totnes St Mary, Churchyard assessment

Search results generated by the HBSMR Gateway from exeGesIS SDM Ltd.